Washington Administrative Code Title 461 - Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office (Shorelines Hearings Board)
Washington Administrative Code Title 461: Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office (Shorelines Hearings Board)
1. Purpose and Scope
WAC Title 461 contains the procedural rules for appeals and hearings conducted by the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB), a division of the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office (ELUHO). The SHB hears appeals of local government decisions related to permits issued under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), chapter 90.58 RCW. The SMA governs how Washington’s shorelines are protected and managed, balancing ecological protection, public access, and reasonable private property use.
Title 461 spells out:
How parties may appeal decisions on shoreline substantial development permits, conditional use permits, and variances;
The process of filing petitions for review;
Service requirements;
Hearing procedures;
Board powers and limitations;
Record keeping and public information.
2. Key Definitions
Substantial Development Permit: Required for developments exceeding a cost threshold or otherwise affecting shorelines significantly.
Aggrieved Party: A person or entity claiming harm or adverse impact from a shoreline permit decision and thus entitled to appeal.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The locally adopted plan and regulations that implement SMA policies in a particular jurisdiction.
Petition for Review: Formal appeal filed with SHB challenging a local permit decision.
3. Appeal Process Under WAC 461
Filing and Deadlines:
The petition for review must be filed within 21 days of the local government’s final decision on a shoreline permit (sometimes 30 days, depending on circumstances). This strict deadline is enforced to ensure timely resolution of disputes.
The petition must be served on all parties involved (local government, Department of Ecology, other interested parties). Service rules specify how and when documents must be delivered to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.
Case Law Example — Snohomish County v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2001):
The court held that proper service of notice to the local government’s planning department sufficed, reinforcing that appellants must strictly follow WAC service rules to maintain jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction and Review Scope:
The SHB reviews appeals to ensure the permit decision complies with the SMA and the local SMP.
The Board does not review compliance with local laws that are not part of the SMP, such as separate critical areas ordinances, except as incorporated into the SMP.
Case Law Example — Kailin v. Clallam County (2009):
This case clarified that the SHB’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing permits under the SMA and SMP. The SHB cannot enforce local regulations unrelated to the SMP.
Hearing Procedures:
Once a petition is accepted, the Board schedules a hearing where parties can present evidence, call witnesses, and argue their case.
The Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and bases its decision on the administrative record, testimony, and legal standards.
Decisions must include findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the reasoning.
Case Law Example — De Tienne v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2016):
The court upheld SHB’s denial of a permit based on substantial evidence that the proposed development would harm sensitive habitats (eelgrass beds) and violate the SMP. This case highlights the Board’s role in environmental protection and careful review of ecological data.
4. Standards of Review
The SHB applies a “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing permit decisions.
The Board gives deference to local government findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The Board must balance environmental protection with reasonable use of property, consistent with SMA goals.
Case Law Example — Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1977):
The Washington Supreme Court held that activities altering shorelines qualify as “substantial development” requiring permits, emphasizing the SMA’s broad reach to protect shorelines. It also endorsed that permit conditions must be reasonable and supported by evidence.
5. Penalties and Enforcement
If someone undertakes development without a required permit or violates permit conditions, the Department of Ecology or local government can issue stop work orders and impose penalties.
The SHB can hear appeals challenging these penalties.
Penalties can be assessed daily for ongoing violations.
Case Law Example — Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2009):
This case confirmed the SHB’s authority to impose penalties and uphold stop work orders where a property owner developed shorelines without permits, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the SMA.
6. Important Procedural Rules Under WAC 461
Public Records: WAC ensures transparency by requiring that decisions, filings, and hearing records be publicly accessible.
Mediation and Settlement: The Board encourages mediation to resolve disputes before formal hearings when appropriate.
Decision Finality: SHB decisions are final unless appealed to superior court under limited grounds.
Remand Authority: The SHB can remand cases back to local governments to correct errors or gather more information.
7. Summary of the Legal Framework with Case Law
| Topic | Legal Principle | Case Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Filing & Service | Strict deadlines and service compliance required for appeals | Snohomish County v. SHB |
| Jurisdiction | SHB reviews only SMA and SMP matters | Kailin v. Clallam County |
| Review Standard | Substantial evidence required to uphold decisions | De Tienne v. SHB, Weyerhaeuser v. King County |
| Environmental Protection | Broad interpretation of “development” to protect shorelines | Weyerhaeuser Co. |
| Penalty Enforcement | SHB has authority to uphold stop work orders and penalties | Herman v. SHB |
| Balancing Interests | Must balance environmental protection with reasonable land use | Overlake Fund v. SHB (balancing case) |
Conclusion
WAC Title 461 establishes the rules governing how the Shorelines Hearings Board handles appeals of shoreline permit decisions, focusing on procedural fairness, timely filing, proper service, and thorough review consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The Board ensures shoreline development complies with both state policies and local Shoreline Master Programs, balancing environmental protections with landowner rights.
Case law consistently affirms the Board’s authority to enforce these rules, uphold permit conditions, and impose penalties for violations, but also sets clear boundaries on the Board’s jurisdiction and mandates strict adherence to procedural requirements.
RELATED Blog
0 comments